Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as a treatment for gastric neoplasms and usually requires deep sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion with or without midazolam during ESD.
A total of 135 patients scheduled for ESDs between December 2008 and June 2010 were included in this prospective study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the propofol group or the combination group (propofol plus midazolam).
The propofol group reported only one case of severe hypoxemia with no need of mask ventilation or intubation. Additionally, 18 cases of mild hypotension were observed in the propofol group, and 11 cases were observed in the combination group. The combination group had a lower mean total propofol dose (378 mg vs 466 mg, p<0.012), a longer mean recovery time (10.5 minutes vs 7.9 minutes, p=0.027), and a lower frequency of overall adverse events (32.8% vs 17.6%, p=0.042).
Deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion was shown to be safe during ESD. The combination of continuous propofol infusion and intermittent midazolam injection can decrease the total dose and infusion rate of propofol and the overall occurrence of adverse events.
Deep sedation; Propofol; Midazolam; Endoscopy; Gastrointestinal
Propofol induced sedation with bispectral index (BIS) monitoring has been reported to lead to higher satisfaction in patients and endoscopists during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. There are no data, however, regarding the efficacy of midazolam and meperidine (M/M) induced sedation with BIS monitoring during ESD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether M/M induced sedation with BIS monitoring could improve satisfaction and reduce the dose of M/M required during ESD.
Between September 2009 and January 2010, 56 patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to a BIS group (n=28) and a non-BIS group (n=28). Patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores were assessed using the visual analog scale (0 to 100) following the ESD.
The mean satisfaction scores did not significantly differ between the BIS and non-BIS groups (92.3±16.3 vs 93.3±15.5, p=0.53) or endoscopists (83.1±15.4 vs 80.0±16.7, p=0.52). Although the mean meperidine dose did not differ (62.5±27.6 vs 51.0±17.3, p=0.18) between the two groups, the mean dose of midazolam in the non-BIS group was lower than in the BIS group (6.8±2.0 vs 5.4±2.1, p=0.01).
BIS monitoring during ESD did not increase the satisfaction of endoscopists or patients and did not lead to an M/M dose reduction. These results demonstrate that BIS monitoring provides no additional benefit to M/M induced sedation during ESD.
Bispectral index monitoring; Satisfaction; Midazolam; Endoscopic submucosal dissection
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable procedure that requires adequate sedation for its successful conduction. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP.
A retrospective review of patient records from a single tertiary care hospital was performed. Ninety-four patients undergoing ERCP received one of the two medication regimens, which was administered by a nurse under the supervision of a gastroenterologist. Patients in the midazolam (M) group (n=44) received only intravenous midazolam, which was titrated to achieve deep sedation. Patients in the midazolam pulse propofol (MP) group (n=50) initially received an intravenous combination of midazolam and propofol, and then propofol was titrated to achieve deep sedation.
The time to the initial sedation was shorter in the MP group than in the M group (1.13 minutes vs. 1.84 minutes, respectively; p<0.001). The recovery time was faster in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.031). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of adverse events, pain experienced by the patient, patient discomfort, degree of amnesia, and gag reflex. Patient cooperation, rated by the endoscopist as excellent, was greater in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.046).
The combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP is more effective than midazolam alone. There is no difference in the safety of the procedure.
Propofol; Midazolam; Cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde; Conscious sedation
This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.
Propofol; Ketamine; Remifentanil; Deep sedation; TIVA
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.
We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of 62 children who underwent ambulatory diagnostic EGD during 1-year period. Data were collected from 34 consecutive patients receiving propofol alone. Twenty-eight consecutive patients who received sedation with midazolam served as a comparison group. Outcome variables were length of procedure, time to recovery and need for additional supportive measures.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, weight, sex, and the length of endoscopic procedure. The recovery time from sedation was markedly shorter in propofol group (30±16.41 minutes) compared with midazolam group (58.89±17.32 minutes; p<0.0001). During and after the procedure the mean heart rate was increased in midazolam group (133.04±19.92 and 97.82±16.7) compared with propofol group (110.26±20.14 and 83.26±12.33; p<0.0001). There was no localized pain during sedative administration in midazolam group, though six patients had localized pain during administration of propofol (p<0.028). There was no serious major complication associated with any of the 62 procedures.
Intravenous administered propofol provides faster recovery time and similarly safe sedation compared with midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Propofol; Midazolam; Endoscopy, digestive system; Child
This study aimed to assess pharyngeal function between no bolus and bolus propofol induced sedation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. A retrospective study was conducted involving consecutive gastric cancer patients. Patients in the no bolus group received a 3 mg/kg/h maintenance dose of propofol after the initiation of sedation without bolus injection. All patients in the bolus group received the same maintenance dose of propofol with bolus 0.5 mg/kg propofol injection. Pharyngeal functions were evaluated endoscopically for the first 5 min following the initial administration of propofol. Fourteen patients received no bolus propofol induction and 13 received bolus propofol induction. Motionless vocal cords were observed in 2 patients (14%) in the no bolus group and 3 (23%) in the bolus group. Trachea cartilage was not observed in the no bolus group but was apparent in 6 patients (46%) in the bolus group (P < 0.01). Scope stimulated pharyngeal reflex was observed in 11 patients (79%) in the no bolus group and in 3 (23%) in the bolus group (P < 0.01). Propofol induced sedation without bolus administration preserves pharyngeal function and may constitute a safer sedation method than with bolus.
AIM: To investigate stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.
METHODS: Eighty-six elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD and 82 elderly patients without COPD scheduled for upper GI endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive one of the following two sedation methods: stepwise sedation involving three-stage administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with stepwise sedation (group Cs), and non-COPD with stepwise sedation (group Ns)] or continuous sedation involving continuous administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with continuous sedation (group Cc), and non-COPD with continuous sedation (group Nc)]. Saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), blood pressure, and pulse rate were monitored, and patient discomfort, adverse events, drugs dosage, and recovery time were recorded.
RESULTS: All endoscopies were completed successfully. The occurrences of hypoxemia in groups Cs, Cc, Ns, and Nc were 4 (9.3%), 12 (27.9%), 3 (7.3%), and 5 (12.2%), respectively. The occurrence of hypoxemia in group Cs was significantly lower than that in group Cc (P < 0.05). The average decreases in value of SpO2, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure in group Cs were significantly lower than those in group Cc. Additionally, propofol dosage and overall rate of adverse events in group Cs were lower than those in group Cc. Finally, the recovery time in group Cs was significantly shorter than that in group Cc, and that in group Ns was significantly shorter than that in group Nc (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The stepwise sedation method is effective and safer than the continuous sedation method for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper GI endoscopy.
Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; Adverse events; Sedation; Monitoring; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
AIM: To determine whether bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is useful for propofol administration for deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with a variety of reasons for ERCP who underwent the procedure at least twice between 1 July 2010 and 30 November 2010. This was a randomized cross-over study, in which each patient underwent ERCP twice, once with BIS monitoring and once with control monitoring. Whether BIS monitoring was done during the first or second ERCP procedure was random. Patients were intermittently administered a mixed regimen including midazolam, pethidine, and propofol by trained nurses. The nurse used a routine practice to monitor sedation using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale or the BIS monitoring. The total amount of midazolam and propofol used and serious side effects were compared between the BIS and control groups.
RESULTS: The mean total propofol dose administered was 53.1 ± 32.2 mg in the BIS group and 54.9 ± 30.8 mg in the control group (P = 0.673). The individual propofol dose received per minute during the ERCP procedure was 2.90 ± 1.83 mg/min in the BIS group and 3.44 ± 2.04 mg in the control group (P = 0.103). The median value of the MOAA/S score during the maintenance phase of sedation was comparable for the two groups. The mean BIS values throughout the procedure (from insertion to removal of the endoscope) were 76.5 ± 8.7 for all 59 patients in using the BIS monitor. No significant differences in the frequency of < 80% oxygen saturation, hypotension (< 80 mmHg), or bradycardia (< 50 beats/min) were observed between the two study groups. Four cases of poor cooperation occurred, in which the procedure should be stopped to add the propofol dose. After adding the propofol, the procedure could be conducted successfully (one case in the BIS group, three cases in the control group). The endoscopist rated patient sedation as excellent for all patients in both groups. All patients in both groups rated their level of satisfaction as high (no discomfort). During the post-procedural follow-up in the recovery area, no cases of clinically significant hypoxic episodes were recorded in either group. No other postoperative side effects related to sedation were observed in either group.
CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring trend to slighlty reduce the mean propofol dose. Nurse-administered propofol sedation under the supervision of a gastroenterologist may be considered an alternative under anesthesiologist.
Conscious sedation; Bispectral index monitors; Pancreatic neoplasm; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Regional anaesthesia has become an important anaesthetic technique. Effective sedation is an essential for regional techniques too. This study compares midazolam and propofol in terms of onset & recovery from sedation, dosage and side effects of both the drugs using Bispectral Index monitoring. Ninety eight patients were randomly divided into two groups,one group recieved midazolam infusion while the other recieved propofol infusion until BIS reached 75. We observed Time to reach desired sedation, HR, MABP, time for recovery, dose to reach sedation and for maintenance of sedation and side effects if any. The time to reach required sedation was 11 min in Midazolam group(Group I) while it was 6 min in Propofol group(Group II) (p=0.0). Fall in MABP was greater with propofol. Recovery in with midazolam was slower than with propofol (18.6 ± 6.5 vs 10.10±3.65 min) (p=0.00). We concluded that both midazolam and propofol are effective sedatives, but onset and offset was quicker with propofol, while midazolam was more cardiostable.
Propofol; Midazolam; Sedation; BIS
AIM: To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS: After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ2 test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.
RESULTS: The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.
CONCLUSION: Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.
Endoscopy; Deep sedation; Anesthetic administration; Anesthetic dose; Adverse effects
Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in elderly patients, data on combined sedation with midazolam/propofol are very limited for this age group.
We retrospectively analyzed 454 endoscopic procedures in 347 hospitalized patients ≥ 70 years who had received combined sedation with midazolam/propofol. 513 endoscopic procedures in 397 hospitalized patients < 70 years during the observation period served as controls. Characteristics of endoscopic procedures, co-morbidity, complications and mortality were compared.
Elderly patients had a higher level of co-morbidity and needed lower mean propofol doses for sedation. We observed no major complication and no difference in the number of minor complications. The procedure-associated mortality was 0%; the 28-day mortality was significantly higher in the elderly (2.9% vs. 1.0%).
In this study on elderly patients with high level co-morbidity, a favourable safety profile was observed for a combined sedation with midazolam/propofol with a higher sensitivity to propofol in the elderly.
Propofol (2,6,di-isopropylphenol) was given by continuous intravenous infusion to provide sedation after cardiac surgery in 30 patients and its effects compared with those of midazolam given to a further 30 patients. Propofol infusion allowed rapid and accurate control of the level of sedation, which was satisfactory for longer than with midazolam. Patients given propofol recovered significantly more rapidly from their sedation once they had fulfilled the criteria for weaning from artificial ventilation and as a result spent a significantly shorter time attached to a ventilator. There were no serious complications in either group. Both medical and nursing staff considered the propofol infusion to be superior to midazolam in these patients. These findings suggest that propofol is a suitable replacement for etomidate and alphaxalone-alphadolone for sedating patients receiving intensive care.
AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO2) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.
RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA III [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of IV midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of IV propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41 vs 12 of 42, P = 0.0004).
CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.
Colonoscopy; Deep sedation; Propofol; Hypoventilation; Blood gas monitoring; Transcutaneous
AIM: To compare the endomicroscopic image quality of integrated confocal laser endomicroscopy (iCLE) and sedation efficacy of propofol vs midazolam plus fentanyl (M/F).
METHODS: Consecutive outpatients undergoing iCLE were prospectively recruited and randomized to the propofol group (P group) or M/F group. The patient, performing endoscopist and endoscopic assistant were blinded to the randomization. The quality of endomicroscopic images and anesthetic efficacy outcomes were blindly evaluated after iCLE examination.
RESULTS: There were significantly more good quality endomicroscopic images in the propofol group than in the M/F group (72.75% vs 52.89%, P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy for upper gastrointestinal mucosal lesions using confocal laser endomicroscopy favors the P group, although this did not reach statistical significance. Adverse events and patient assessment were not significantly different for M/F vs propofol except for more frequent intraprocedural recall with M/F. Procedure duration and sedation times were significantly longer in the M/F group, while the scores of endoscopist, anesthetist and assistant assessment were all significantly better in the P group.
CONCLUSION: Sedation with propofol might increase the proportion of good quality endomicroscopic images, and may result in improved procedural efficacy and diagnostic accuracy during iCLE examination.
Confocal laser endomicroscopy; Conscious sedation; Randomized trial; Sensitivity and specificity; Image quality
ERCP practically requires moderate to deep sedation controlled by a combination of benzodiazepine and opiod. Propofol as a sole agent may cause oversedation. A combination (cocktail) of infused propofol, meperidine, and midazolam can reduce the dosage of propofol and we hypothesized that it might decrease the risk of oversedation. We prospectively compare the efficacy, recovery time, patient satisfactory, and side effects between cocktail and conventional sedations in patients undergoing ERCP.
ERCP patients were randomized into 2 groups; the cocktail group (n = 103) and the controls (n = 102). For induction, a combination of 25 mg of meperidine and 2.5 mg of midazolam were administered in both groups. In the cocktail group, a bolus dose of propofol 1 mg/kg was administered and continuously infused. In the controls, 25 mg of meperidine or 2.5 mg/kg of midazolam were titrated to maintain the level of sedation.
In the cocktail group, the average administration rate of propofol was 6.2 mg/kg/hr. In the control group; average weight base dosage of meperidine and midazolam were 1.03 mg/kg and 0.12 mg/kg, respectively. Recovery times and patients’ satisfaction scores in the cocktail and control groups were 9.67 minutes and 12.89 minutes (P = 0.045), 93.1and 87.6 (P <0.001), respectively. Desaturation rates in the cocktail and conventional groups were 58.3% and 31.4% (P <0.001), respectively. All desaturations were corrected with temporary oxygen supplementation without the need for scope removal.
Cocktail sedation containing propofol provides faster recovery time and better patients’ satisfaction for patients undergoing ERCP. However, mild degree of desaturation may still develop.
Cocktail sedation containing propofol; Meperidine; Midazolam; ERCP
Correlation between the clinical and electroencephalogram-based monitoring has been documented sporadically during the onset of sedation. Propofol and midazolam have been studied individually using the observer's assessment of awareness/sedation (OAA/S) score and Bispectral index score (BIS). The present study was designed to compare the time to onset of sedation for propofol and midazolam using both BIS and OAA/S scores, and to find out any correlation.
A total of 46 patients (18-60 years, either sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I/II) posted for infraumbilical surgeries under spinal anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either injection propofol 1 mg/kg bolus followed by infusion 3 mg/kg/h (Group P, n=23) or injection midazolam 0.05 mg/kg bolus followed by infusion 0.06 mg/kg/h (Group M, n=23). Spinal anaesthesia was given with 2.5 ml to 3.0 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine heavy. When sensory block reached T6 level, sedation was initiated. The time to reach BIS score 70 and time to achieve OAA/S score 3 from the start of study drug were noted. OAA/S score at BIS score 70 was noted. Data from 43 patients were analyzed using SPSS 12 for Windows.
Time to reach BIS score 70 using propofol was significantly lower than using the midazolam (P<0.05). Time to achieve OAA/S score 3 using propofol was comparable with midazolam (P=0.358).
A divergence exists between the time to reach BIS score 70 and time to achieve OAA/S score 3 using midazolam, compared with propofol, during the onset of sedation.
Bispectral index score; midazolam; observer's assessment of awareness/sedation score; propofol; sedation
AIM: To investigate whether endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be safely performed at small clinics, such as the Shirakawa Clinic.
METHODS: One thousand forty-seven ESDs to treat gastrointestinal tumors were performed at the Shirakawa Clinic from April 2006 to March 2011. The efficacy, technical feasibility and associated complications of the procedures were assessed. The ESD procedures were performed by five endoscopists. Sedation was induced with propofol for esophagogastorduodenal ESD.
RESULTS: One thousand forty-seven ESDs were performed to treat 64 patients with esophageal cancer (E), 850 patients with gastric tumors (G: 764 patients with cancer, 82 patients with adenomas and four others), four patients with duodenal cancer (D) and 129 patients with colorectal tumors (C: 94 patients with cancer, 21 patients with adenomas and 14 others). The en bloc resection rate was 94.3% (E: 96.9%, G: 95.8%, D: 100%, C: 79.8%). The median operation time was 46 min (range: 4-360 min) and the mean size of the resected specimens was 18 mm (range: 2-150 mm). No mortal complications were observed in association with the ESD procedures. Perforation occurred in 12 cases (1.1%, E: 1 case, G: 9 cases, D: 1 case, C: 1 case) and postoperative bleeding occurred in 53 cases (5.1%, G: 51 cases, D: 1 case, C: 1 case); however, no case required either emergency surgery or blood transfusion. All of the perforations and postperative bleedings were resolved by endoscopic clipping or hemostasis. The other problematic complication observed was pneumonia, which was treated with conservative therapy.
CONCLUSION: ESD can be safely performed in a clinic with established therapeutic methods and medical services to address potential complications.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Complication; Perforation; Clinic
There is increasing interest in balanced propofol sedation (BPS) titrated to moderate sedation (conscious sedation) for endoscopic procedures. However, few controlled studies on BPS targeted to deep sedation for diagnostic endoscopy were found. Alfentanil, a rapid and short-acting synthetic analog of fentanyl, appears to offer clinically significant advantages over fentanyl during outpatient anesthesia.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that low dose of alfentanil used in BPS might also result in more rapid recovery as compared with fentanyl.
A prospective, randomized and double-blinded clinical trial of alfentanil, midazolam and propofol versus fentanyl, midazolam and propofol in 272 outpatients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy for health examination were enrolled. Randomization was achieved by using the computer-generated random sequence. Each combination regimen was titrated to deep sedation. The recovery time, patient satisfaction, safety and the efficacy and cost benefit between groups were compared.
260 participants were analyzed, 129 in alfentanil group and 131 in fentanyl group. There is no significant difference in sex, age, body weight, BMI and ASA distribution between two groups. Also, there is no significant difference in recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between two groups. Though deep sedation was targeted, all cardiopulmonary complications were minor and transient (10.8%, 28/260). No serious adverse events including the use of flumazenil, assisted ventilation, permanent injury or death, and temporary or permanent interruption of procedure were found in both groups. However, fentanyl is New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 103 (approximate US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil, leading to a significant difference in total cost between two groups.
This randomized, double-blinded clinical trial showed that there is no significant difference in the recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between the two most common sedation regimens for EGD and colonoscopy in our hospital. However, fentanyl is NT$103 (US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil in each case.
Institutional Review Board of Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital (IRB097-18) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-12002575)
Balanced propofol sedation; Alfentanil; Fentanyl; Deep sedation; Diagnostic endoscopy; Cost benefit
Considering the growing trend of laryngeal surgeries and the need to protect the airway during and after surgery, among several therapeutic regimens to induce sedation, two regimens of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-midazolam were compared in microlaryngeal surgeries.
Forty ASA I-II class patients undergoing microlaryngeal surgeries and referring routinely for postoperative visits were randomly recruited into two groups. For all the patients, 0.5 mg/Kg of propofol was used as bolus and then, 50 mcg/Kg/min of the drug was infused intravenously. For one group, 0.03 mg/Kg bolus of midazolam and for the other group, 2 mcg/Kg bolus of fentanyl was administered in combination with propofol. Ramsay system was used in order to evaluate the effect of the two drugs in inducing sedation. The need for additional dose, blood pressure, heart rate, arterial blood oxygen saturation, and also recovery time and adverse effects such as nausea/vomiting and recalling intra-operative memories, were assessed.
The patients in the two groups were not statistically different regarding the number of patients, age, sex, preoperative vital signs, the need for additional doses of propofol, systolic blood pressure and mean systolic blood pressure during laryngoscopy. However, mean systolic blood pressure 1 min after removal of laryngoscope returned faster to the baseline in midazolam group (p < 0.01). Mean heart rate returned sooner to the baseline in fentanyl group following removal of stimulation. Besides, heart rate showed a more reduction following administration of fentanyl (p < 0.02). Mean arterial blood oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy significantly decreased in fentanyl group (p < 0.05) compared to the other group. The time it took to achieve a full consciousness was shorter in midazolam group (p < 0.01). Nausea/vomiting was significantly more prevalent in fentanyl group while the patients in midazolam group apparently experienced more of amnesia, comparatively (p < 0.01).
Inducing laryngeal block and local anesthesia using propofol-midazolam regimen is not only associated with a more rapid recovery and less recalling of unpleasant memories, but also better in preventing reduction of arterial oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy compared with propofol-fentanyl regimen.
Sedation; Microlaryngeal surgery; Propofol; Midazolam; Fentanyl
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP ) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures are more complex and longer duration than standard endoscopy, requiring deeper levels of sedation. While prior studies have compared standard sedation (meperidine and midazolam) to propofol, no randomized, controlled trials have evaluated the use of adjunct sedatives in these procedures.
To prospectively compare the use of promethazine and diphenhydramine as adjunct sedatives to standard sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures.
This was a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study in a single, tertiary-care referral center. Promethazine (P), diphenhydramine (B), or normal saline (NS) were given as adjunct sedatives along with meperidine and midazolam in adult patients undergoing upper EUS and/or ERCP procedures. The main outcome measurement was sedation failure.
292 patients (P: 97, B: 93, NS: 102) were randomized over 36 months. No significant differences in sedation failures (P: 8, B: 13, NS: 11, p=0.449) or in the times needed to achieve adequate sedation (P: 11.8 minutes, B: 12.9 minutes, NS: 14.0 minutes, p=0.054) were seen between the groups. Sedation using P (43.7 minutes) was associated with a significantly longer recovery time compared to B (28.0 minutes) or NS (24.5 minutes).
The use of promethazine and diphenhydramine as adjunct sedatives did not improve sedation failure rates or reduce the time needed to achieve sedation in patients undergoing upper EUS or ERCP. Patients with anticipated sedation difficulties should proceed directly to propofol-based sedation.
promethazine; diphenhydramine; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; endoscopic ultrasound; sedation
The aim of this study was to investigate whether a small dose of midazolam and lessening the propofol dosage could prevent cardiovascular change at tracheal intubation for induction in aged patients.
Eighty patients over 65 years (ASA physical status 1, 2) scheduled for elective surgery received general anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol or midazolam. Patients in group P (n = 40) were induced with 0.9% NaCl 0.03 ml/kg, propofol 1. 2 mg/kg and remifentanil. Patients in group MP (n = 40) were induced with midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, propofol 0.8 mg/kg and remifentanil. The time taken to reach loss of consciousness (LOC) and the value of bispectral index score (BIS) at LOC were recorded. After LOC, 0.8 mg/kg of rocuronium was given and tracheal intubation was performed. The mean blood pressure (MBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded before induction as the base value, before intubation, immediately post-intubation and 3 minutes after intubation.
Compared with the base values, MBP at before intubation and 3 minutes after intubation was significantly decreased in group P and group MP (P < 0.05). Compared with group P, the decrease of MBP was significantly less at before intubation, immediately after intubation and 3 minutes after intubation in group MP (P < 0.05). The time taken to reach LOC was significantly decreased in group MP compared with that in group P (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences of HR at any time between the two groups.
Co-induction with midazolam and propofol could prevent a marked BP decrease at tracheal intubation for induction in aged patients.
Aged; Cardiovascular system; Drug synergism; Midazolam; Propofol
The purpose of this study was to determine the total propofol dose (mg/kg) for non-emergent pediatric procedural sedation and evaluate dosing differences with regard to a patient's sex, age, and body mass index. Adverse events were recorded and evaluated to determine whether certain patient groups were at a higher risk than others.
This study was a retrospective observational pilot study including patients 0 to 18 years of age admitted between January 2008 and November 2009 for non-emergent gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures or radiologic imaging, who received propofol for procedural sedation. Data gathered included sex, age, height, weight, chronic medical conditions and medication use, concomitant anesthetic gas, preprocedure midazolam, procedure length, propofol dose in mg/kg, other medications administered during procedure, and adverse events that occurred. Comparisons between adverse event groups and categories of baseline characteristics were made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric and Pearson's chisquare tests, as appropriate.
A total of 101 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean dose of propofol required for female patients was 3.7 mg/kg versus 3.4 mg/kg for males (p=0.3). The mean dose of propofol for patients ≤9 years, 10 to 12 years, and >12 years was 3.2, 3.9, and 3.9 mg/kg, respectively (p=0.25). The mean dose of propofol for underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese patients was 4.2, 3.9, 3.6, and 2.6 mg/kg, respectively (p=0.38). Hypotension occurred in 42.6% of patients, and bradycardia occurred in 13.9% of patients.
There were no differences in dose requirements based on sex or age. The difference in dosing between different body weight categories was not statistically significant. The dose of propofol was higher in patients that experienced bradycardia and hypotension, but there was no statistical significance. Given the above, future studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to establish if statistical significance exists.
computed tomography; endoscopy; gastrointestinal; magnetic resonance imaging; pediatrics; propofol
There are safety issues associated with propofol use for flexible bronchoscopy (FB). The bispectral index (BIS) correlates well with the level of consciousness. The aim of this study was to show that BIS-guided propofol infusion is safe and may provide better sedation, benefiting the patients and bronchoscopists.
After administering alfentanil bolus, 500 patients were randomized to either propofol infusion titrated to a BIS level of 65-75 (study group) or incremental midazolam bolus based on clinical judgment to achieve moderate sedation. The primary endpoint was safety, while the secondary endpoints were recovery time, patient tolerance, and cooperation.
The proportion of patients with hypoxemia or hypotensive events were not different in the 2 groups (study vs. control groups: 39.9% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.340; 7.4% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.159, respectively). The mean lowest blood pressure was lower in the study group. Logistic regression revealed male gender, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and electrocautery were associated with hypoxemia, whereas lower propofol dose for induction was associated with hypotension in the study group. The study group had better global tolerance (p<0.001), less procedural interference by movement or cough (13.6% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001; 30.0% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.001, respectively), and shorter time to orientation and ambulation (11.7±10.2 min vs. 29.7±26.8 min, p<0.001; 30.0±18.2 min vs. 55.7±40.6 min, p<0.001, respectively) compared to the control group.
BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with alfentanil for FB sedation provides excellent patient tolerance, with fast recovery and less procedure interference.
ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00789815
State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol.
This currently ongoing trial is designed as a two-armed, monocentric, randomized prospective phase II study including intubated intensive care patients with an expected necessity for sedation exceeding 48 h. Patients are randomly assigned to either receive intravenous sedation with propofol or sevoflurane employing the ACD. Primary endpoint is the comparison of the ‘weaning time’ defined as the time required from discontinuation of the sedating agent until sufficient spontaneous breathing occurs. Moreover, sedation depth evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and parameters of patient’s safety (that is, vital signs, laboratory monitoring of organ function) as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and overall stay on the ICU are analyzed and compared. An intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out with all patients for whom it will be possible to define a wake-up time. In addition, a per-protocol analysis is envisaged. Completion of patient recruitment is expected by the end of 2012.
This clinical study is designed to evaluate the impact of sevoflurane during long-term sedation of critically ill patients on ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety compared to the standard intravenous sedation concept employing propofol.
Inhalative sedation; Intravenous sedation; Intensive care; Sevoflurane
AIM: To assess esophageal motility after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).
METHODS: Twelve patients (6 men and 6 women) aged 53-64 years (mean age, 58 years) who underwent regular examination 3-12 mo after esophageal ESD for neoplasms of the esophageal body were included in this study. The ESD procedure was performed under deep sedation using a combination of propofol and fentanyl, and involved a submucosal injection to lift the lesion and use of a dual-knife and an insulated-tip knife to create a circumferential incision around the lesion extending into the submucosa. Esophageal motility was examined using a high-resolution manometry system. Dysphagia was graded using a five-point scale according to the Mellow and Pinkas scoring system. Patient symptoms and the results of esophageal manometry were then analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 12 patients enrolled, 1 patient had grade 2 dysphagia, 1 patient had grade 1 dysphagia, and 3 patients complained of sporadic dysphagia. Ineffective esophageal motility was observed in 5 of 6 patients with above semi-circumference of resection extension. Of these 5 patients, 1 patient complained of grade 2 dysphagia (with esophageal stricture), one patient complained of grade 1 dysphagia, and 3 patients complained of sporadic dysphagia. Normal esophageal body manometry was observed in all 6 patients with below semi-circumference of resection extension. The 6 patients with normal esophageal motility did not complain of dysphagia.
CONCLUSION: Extensive esophageal ESD may cause esophageal dysmotility in some patients, and might also have an influence on dysphagia although without esophageal stricture.
Esophageal neoplasm; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Dysphagia; Ineffective esophageal motility; Esophageal manometry